GHSA-qv95-g3gm-x542 BIT-vault-2021-41802 CVE-2021-41802 GO-2022-0618
Hashicorp Vault Privilege Escalation Vulnerability
Low
Go
- Severity
- 2.9 / 10
- Low · CVSS 3.1
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 0.61%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 49.15% of scored vulnerabilities.
- Known exploited
- No
- Not in CISA's catalog
- Weakness
- CWE-269 Improper Privilege Management
- CWE-732 Incorrect Permission Assignment for Critical Resource
- Fix
1.7.5- Upgrade github.com/hashicorp/vault to this version or later
Description
HashiCorp Vault and Vault Enterprise through 1.7.4 and 1.8.3 allowed a user with write permission to an entity alias ID sharing a mount accessor with another user to acquire this other user’s policies by merging their identities. Fixed in Vault and Vault Enterprise 1.7.5 and 1.8.4.
Affected versions
Go
| Package | Vulnerable | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| github.com/hashicorp/vault | < 1.7.5 |
1.7.5 |
| github.com/hashicorp/vault | >= 1.8.0, < 1.8.4 |
1.8.4 |
| github.com/hashicorp/vault | < 1.7.5>= 1.8.0, < 1.8.4 |
1.7.51.8.4 |
How to fix
Move to the fixed version or later with your package manager, update the lockfile, and run your tests. If the package only arrives through another dependency, upgrade that dependency first. If none of its releases pulls a fixed version yet, force the version with your package manager's override.
github.com/hashicorp/vault Go → 1.7.5
- go
go get github.com/hashicorp/vault@v1.7.5 && go mod tidy
Severity breakdown
CVSS 3.1 2.9
CVSS:3.1/AV:A/AC:L/PR:H/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:N/A:N
- Attack vector
- Adjacent
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- High
- User interaction
- Required
- Scope
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
Weakness
CWE-269: Improper Privilege Management
The product does not properly assign, modify, track, or check privileges for an actor, creating an unintended sphere of control for that actor.
How to prevent it
- Architecture and Design, Operation: Very carefully manage the setting, management, and handling of privileges. Explicitly manage trust zones in the software.
- Architecture and Design: Follow the principle of least privilege when assigning access rights to entities in a software system.
- Architecture and Design: Consider following the principle of separation of privilege. Require multiple conditions to be met before permitting access to a system resource.
CWE-732: Incorrect Permission Assignment for Critical Resource
The product specifies permissions for a security-critical resource in a way that allows that resource to be read or modified by unintended actors.
How to prevent it
- Implementation: When using a critical resource such as a configuration file, check to see if the resource has insecure permissions (such as being modifiable by any regular user) [REF-62], and generate an error or even exit the software if there is a possibility that the resource could have been modified by an unauthorized party.
- Architecture and Design: Divide the software into anonymous, normal, privileged, and administrative areas. Reduce the attack surface by carefully defining distinct user groups, privileges, and/or roles. Map these against data, functionality, and the related resources. Then set the permissions accordingly. This will allow you to maintain more fine-grained control over your resources. [REF-207]
- Architecture and Design, Operation: Run the code in a "jail" or similar sandbox environment that enforces strict boundaries between the process and the operating system. This may effectively restrict which files can be accessed in a particular directory or which commands can be executed by the software. OS-level examples include the Unix chroot jail, AppArmor, and SELinux. In general, managed code may provide some protection. For example, java.io.FilePermission in the Java SecurityManager allows the software to specify restrictions on file operations. This may not be a feasible solution, and it only limits the impact to the operating system; the rest of the application may still be subject to compromise. Be careful to avoid CWE-243 and other weaknesses related to jails.
- Implementation, Installation: During program startup, explicitly set the default permissions or umask to the most restrictive setting possible. Also set the appropriate permissions during program installation. This will prevent you from inheriting insecure permissions from any user who installs or runs the program.
- System Configuration: For all configuration files, executables, and libraries, make sure that they are only readable and writable by the software's administrator.
- Documentation: Do not suggest insecure configuration changes in documentation, especially if those configurations can extend to resources and other programs that are outside the scope of the application.
- Installation: Do not assume that a system administrator will manually change the configuration to the settings that are recommended in the software's manual.
- Operation, System Configuration: Ensure that the software runs properly under the United States Government Configuration Baseline (USGCB) [REF-199] or an equivalent hardening configuration guide, which many organizations use to limit the attack surface and potential risk of deployed software.
- Implementation, System Configuration, Operation: When storing data in the cloud (e.g., S3 buckets, Azure blobs, Google Cloud Storage, etc.), use the provider's controls to disable public access.
References
Advisories
Packages
Other links
Timeline
- Published
- Last updated by the source
- Latest EPSS score
Related advisories
| Advisory | Severity | Why it's related |
|---|---|---|
| GHSA-88v5-9hxc-f85r HashiCorp Vault Vulnerable to Denial-of-Service via Unauthenticated Root Token Generation/Rekey Operations | High | Also affects github.com/hashicorp/vault |
| GHSA-8r5m-3f66-qpr3 HashiCorp Vault has Server-Side Request Forgery in ACME Challenge Validation via Attacker-Controlled DNS | High | Also affects github.com/hashicorp/vault |
| GHSA-72gw-fmmr-c4r4 HashiCorp Vault May Expose Tokens to Auth Plugins Due to Incorrect Header Sanitization | High | Also affects github.com/hashicorp/vault |
| GHSA-m2w4-8ggf-rj47 HashiCorp Vault has a KVv2 Metadata and Secret Deletion Policy Bypass that leads to Denial-of-Service | High | Also affects github.com/hashicorp/vault |
| GHSA-vp5w-xcfc-73wf Hashicorp Vault and Vault Enterprise vulnerable to a denial of service when processing JSON | High | Also affects github.com/hashicorp/vault |
| GHSA-9g4h-h484-3578 HashiCorp Vault and Vault Enterprise's AWS Auth method may be susceptible to authentication bypass | High | Also affects github.com/hashicorp/vault |
| GHSA-8f82-53h8-2p34 HashiCorp Vault Community Edition Denial of Service Though Complex JSON Payloads | High | Also affects github.com/hashicorp/vault |
| GHSA-7rx2-769v-hrwf HashiCorp Vault ldap auth method may not have correctly enforced MFA | High | Also affects github.com/hashicorp/vault |
MergeHarbor checks every repository's dependencies against this database, ranks what matters by exploitability and reachability, routes it to the owning team and opens the fix pull request.
Check your repos with MergeHarbor